Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gursewak Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 January, 2023
CRM-M-1413-2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(106)
CRM-M-1413-2023
Date of Decision:-11.01.2023
Gursewak Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab.
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN
****
Present: Mr. A.S. Samra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Gupta, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.
****
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
Prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.009
dated 07.12.2022, under Sections 376, 506 of IPC (Annexure P-1),
registered at Police Station Women Police Station, Sangrur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR is
false and the petitioner and the complainant were in a relationship on their
own free will from the last three years. He submitted that the physical
relationship between the parties was consensual, and hence, Section 376
IPC is not attracted.
He relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in case titled as "Dr. Dhruvaram Mulidhar Sonar vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors." and judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in
1 of 3
CRM-M-1413-2023
case titled as "Sahin Sukhla vs. State of Rajasthan" and judgment of
Hon'ble Orissa High Court in case titled as "Santosh Kumar Nayak vs.
State of Odisha". He also submits that the complainant executed an
affidavit on 29.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) and also made a statement on
25.08.2022 (Annexure P-3)that she does not want to take any legal action
against the petitioner. However, subsequently the present FIR has been
lodged on 07.12.2022.
On the strength of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner
prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State assisted by the
counsel for the complainant, who has put in appearance, submits that the
petitioner has played with the life of the complainant and for three years, he
kept on promising and created misconception that he will get married to
her. He further submits that the petitioner is trying to play hide and seek
with the complainant and as and when a situation arises or a complaint is
made, just to wriggle out the complexities, he agreed and accordingly, to
save himself, the petitioner got engaged with the complainant on
24.07.2022. It was due to the said assurance and convincing power of the
petitioner that the complainant executed the said affidavit and withdrew the
complaint given earlier. He further submits that the marriage was fixed for
03.12.2022 but just before the said date, the petitioner refused to marry and
it was only thereafter, the petitioner left with no alternative except to file
the present FIR on 07.12.2022. He further submits that the petitioner is in
habit of ruining the life of the girls and now living with another girl namely,
Manpreet Kaur d/o Jaswant Singh after ruining her life.
2 of 3
CRM-M-1413-2023
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in case titled as
"Dr. Dhruvaram Mulidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors." is
not attracted in this case as in the present case, the petitioner and the
complainant were not married and, therefore, the fact that the petitioner did
got engaged to the complainant on 24.07.2022, which demonstrates that
there was a positive promise to marry. However, at the last moment, the
petitioner has tried to raise the shield of temperamental differences.
Be that as it may, at this stage, since the serious allegations
have been raised in the FIR, which requires deep investigation, the
petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary concession of anticipatory bail.
Hence, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of
merits.
(ALOK JAIN)
JUDGE
11.01.2023
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
